More on publishing costs

["D Anderson" <dh-anderson@corhealth.com>]

A recent comment on this list that after distribution and access-provision
costs are removed, "the only remaining essential learned-journal cost (and
function) may well prove to be the implementation of peer review" reflects
a continuing underestimation, and thereby denigration, of the publishing
function.

We publish journalist-written newsletters in the healthcare field, but I
have a fairly good understanding of the peer-reviewed journal publishing
process. The time, expense, and effort involved in getting content into
print is reflected by the large staffs devoted just to the editorial
process.

For example, the Journal of the American Medical Association lists the
following editorial staff members: One Editor-in-Chief, one Executive
Deputy Editor, three Deputy Editors, one Senior Contributing Editor, one
Managing Senior Editor, two Senior Editors, 12 Contributing Editors, one
Statistical Editor, two Associate Editors, four staff members involved
with the Medical News & Perspectives section, two Assistant Editors, one
Executive Assistant to the Editor, one Administrative Assistant, one
Medical Illustrator, three staff members devoted to Electronic Media, one
Editorial Systems and Administration Director, one Database Specialist,
one Electronic Input Supervisor, two Electronic Input Specialists, one
Staff Assistant, 14 Editorial Assistants, one Editorial Processing
Division Director, two Editorial Systems Managers, one Associate Editorial
Systems Developer, one Manuscript Editing Director, one Abstracts Editor,
four Senior Manuscript Editors, several freelance editors, and three
staffers in Media Relations (they alert the press to newsworthy articles).
It can be assumed that not all of these staffers are full-time employees.

In addition to publishing and business staffers, the journal lists staff
members from the AMA's Publishing Operations Division, including one
Division Director, three Directors, 16 Managers, 11 staffers in
Composition and New Media, 6 staffers in Graphics, and 6 staffers in
Proofreading.

On top of staff expenses would come the usual overhead costs. I've omitted
staff devoted to circulation and advertising.

The British Medical Journal lists the following: One Editor, one Managing
Editor, one Web Editor, one Deputy Editor, one Editorials Editor, one News
Editor, four Papers Editors, one Primary Care Editor, one Education and
Debate staffer, one Learning in Practice staffer, one Clinical Reviews
Editor, one Information in Practice staffer, one Letters Editor, one
Obituaries and Reviews staffer, two Career Focus staffers, one Research
Coordinator, one Research Assistant, numerous Editorial Advisors and
Statistical Advisors, 10 Technical Editors, three Editorial Assistants,
three Papers Administrators and Production Assistants, one Chief
Production Editor, one Picture Editor, one Illustrator, and one staffer in
the Press Office.

Top-tier journals have sufficient circulation to provide top-quality
content that has wide readership and influence. Journals with smaller
circulations make do with fewer staff members. Farther down the quality
scale are journals that spend little money on their content, and it shows,
at least to sophisticated readers.

Publishing is a tedious, detail-oriented business. Even letters to the
editor must be reviewed and selected before going through several rounds
of editing and proofing. Then comes formatting and final proofing. The
quality of editorial staff can make a significant difference in the
quality of content.

But it takes more than just editorial quality to create a top-tier
journal. Top journals spend time and effort on communicating with their
readers. They develop news and analysis features to put research into
perspective. They internally track developments in their fields. They
employ media relations professionals to keep their publications in the
public eye. In short, they create a journal in which authors want their
work to be seen.

Will an author-pays system be able to provide the level of quality that
today's subscription-based publications do? Will a relatively small
handful of research institutions be able to shoulder the entire burden of
publishing costs? Will the author-pays system be used primarily by the
bottom-tier authors?

As a newsletter publisher, I have nothing to gain by the continuation of
subscription-supported journal publishing. Quite the contrary. As a
consumer of information, I pay a lot of money each year to access journals
in the medical and healthcare fields. Under a shift to author-pays OA, I
would be relieved of the burden of having to help support the cost of
academic journal publishing. In fact, proponents of OA would be wise to
enlist private industry in support of the cause because, in the aggregate,
it has the potential to save for-profit organizations hundreds of millions
of dollars a year.

Dean H. Anderson
Publisher
COR Health
Insight ... not just news
http://www.corhealth.co